Aamir pops his eyes, takes a cool tone, and gives gyaan on the perils of rote learning in every damn scene.

And why the fuck do chatur and virus talk like that. Headache inducing.

This fails even to meet ‘hollywood inspirational shit standards’ as there is no plot really. And Aamir is way too intelligent, and others are way too foolish.

It’s not even a film, more like propaganda. Told through a painful 2 hr+ film.

If I was Chetan Bhagat, I’d mutter a silent prayer thanking god for the non-inclusion of my name at the beginning of the film.

I meant,

Your point about Rancho’s success in the exam is brilliant, and one that all, including yours truly completely missed.

Some of your points are worthy of a serious contemplation, most definitely. It is the review of great astuteness. I believe most of Hirani poking fun is derived from his self-assurance that his attitude towards his each character is justified till the time it fulfils, what according to his film, is the ultimate goal of all cinema viewing – entertainment, in the most vulgar sense of the word – instantly gratifying, urgently satisfying, and moments with potency that lasts for a second or two. Much like all the close-ups of the Jews’ heads getting blown in Schindler’s List, or bodies in action films falling from great heights in slow motion. With humour that goes full throttle regardless of the consequent moralistic paradoxes more than once in the film, you do wonder if his ability to laugh at a paraplegic patient is the sign of mature writing, or merely, insensitive and shallow exploitation. I am not sure if Mr.Hirani can tell the difference himself. What worries me, however, is that in the face of resounding commercial success, he will never even have to care about telling it now.

JAFB

Your point about Rancho’s success in the exam is brilliant, and one that all, including yours truly.

Yes, Bollywood’s developing a habit recently of feigning an anti-authoritarian stance. Ironic, since they are the authority.

“are busy counting a couple of hundred crores and guys like Adoor Gopalakrishnan or Mani Kaul remain unknown entities.”
Completely depends on what defines success. Ofcourse, Hirani’s film is confused as to what constitutes ’success’ itself.

One shouldn’t even start talking about the absurdity of Hirani’s agenda. No wonder he contradicts himself throughout the movie. Why, doesn’t the very fact that Rancho tops the class reinforce that the system allows for intelligence to succeed too? Nah, one shouldn’t examine that much in the movie. After all, all it does is take easy potshots at the system, people maintaining it and the ones conforming to it. Have writers stooped down so low that they HAVE to stay outside of the system and hurl one liners and contrived gags to reveal how flawed it is. One thing I would like to imagine is Munnabhai trying to cure Raju’s paralyzed father with a “Jaadu ki jhappi”. That would have revealed how shallow Hirani’s arguments are in both these movies. Pretension is born with scripts such as these. I mean, you confess that you are only making a genre/masala movie, so why all the social agenda?

The film works moderately as a pure melodrama. But then, its aesthetics is too uneven to call it that. And what’s that thing with “success following excellence”? Ya, that proves why Mr. Hirani and co. are busy counting a couple of hundred crores and guys like Adoor Gopalakrishnan or Mani Kaul remain unknown entities.

But what is interesting is that Hirani’s use of humour (tepid, no doubt) to boost sentimental gratification seems characteristic of, not Hrishikesh Mukherjee, but classic Hollywood. I thought this eclectic mixture is one reason that the movie doesn’t fall flat at most places it ought to.

http://sudiptounplugged.blogspot.com/2010/01/3-idiots-some-thoughts.html

@Maddy: I’m not certain we can label 3 Idiots as a film for the “masses”. I’ve explained why in the article mentioned above. My principal worry is that this movie, in spite of it’s shortcomings, is such an enormous success. I got the same feeling when I watched with horror the enthusiasm with which the below average, jingoistic film Rang De Basanti was greeted. I am less horrified with the success of 3 Idiots, but disturbed, all the same.

Sorry for the delay in replying. I believe you underestimate the influence of a consistent inflow of dishonest, insincere, and cautiously calculated imagery over the audiences. When you speak of the audience not having a desire to go to the Swiss Alps and dance, you speak only of a literal, obvious and immediate influence – and I daresay, it is rather juvenile to talk in those terms. I mean, we all know that a war film doesn’t make anyone go to the border. Or a heist film does not influence anyone to rob a bank. The impact of imagery that you watch are a subject to, in terms of advertisements, music videos, films, and news; is carefully constructed to gradually seep in to your conscious and its influence, thought not immediate, is indelible.

In the feudal times, the imperialism of the zamindaar, or the feudal lord over his prole, the worker, the farmer was immediate – he would make his authority known over them in a matter of seconds and tell them what to do – and they, under debt would do it. Essentially, he could make them do what his whim demanded.

The world today is less direct in terms of the bourgeois(or the upper classes seeped in feudalistic traditions) getting their wishes fulfilled; mostly for the faux-resurgence of the concept of the democracy in the early 21st century and the over-estimation of the concept/relevance of political correctness. Therefore, if a rich man were to come to you today and command you to do something, he would, in effect, be asking for trouble in terms of the immediate retaliation. Thus, the upper class have decided to make use of another readily available tool at their disposal to get their fancies fulfilled : the fifth column – the media of the nation. Why do you think millions and billions of dollars are spent each year on advertising/PR/film productions/ad placements – it is because in the 21st century, when everyone is on the net and no one is singularly reliable anymore, it is only the ‘media’ that can claim to be the apostle, the upholder, and the vanguard of truth. The upper-classes realise it. They realise the vulnerabilities of the middle class, their insecurities, their worst fears, and consistently like to play into them. Why do you think a brand like Fair & Lovely is so popular? Because some corporate honcho in some cabin is aware that a dark complexion is one of the major concerns of the Indian middle class. Why do you think Shaadi.Com is so famous? Because marriage is one of the major anxieties of any Indian family. Similar, with insurance companies. Why do you think, that despite the idea of an economic progress that will benefit everyone, only two brothers run the entire nation? Similarly, there is a certain carefully constructed thought behind the recent spate of releases that talk of the middle class victories over their real-life masters. It is not as random, or as purely devoted to the cause of entertainment as you might like to think. Bollywood became an industry in 2001. It also became a business. Each studio is now first a commercial entity, and than an artistic one. They have market surveys, growth graphs, preview screenings – their executives study market trends – and only then, films are greenlit. Similarly, on television, it is easy to witness a horde of serials based in localised setups (Lucknow, Rajasthan, Bihar) coming up – because television has penetrated beyond the metros. These trends are a yield, not of some great artistic device, but I daresay, one exploitative one.

Now, I am not trying to raise hysteria here. Media has, and for a century now, been not only the documentation of a social mood, but also its creation. It is not a new development – but one that not many inquire about. Also, the only thing I seek to ask is – fine, if executives in their air-conditioned cabins do take up the causes of the middle class and seek to explore them – we can applaud them for the noble intentions, but can’t we, at the same time, ask for a more graver acknowledgment of our issues. This is not a demand for realism, but sincerity. And I claim to be no upholder of the middle class as such, or to reduce it into a us. vs. them debate. It is just that, we must, at every step, realise the enormity of the screen and consequences of each popular film – to just think of it as weekend entertainment would be our own downfall, and an exercise in futility.

Cheers.